Hi everybody, While I saw all the different topics talking about the future of BRU and the future of SN+VEX, I thought to something that you'll tell me it's totally impossible but I think my plan could work :
BRU could become the One World Alliance main airport in continental Europe. Sn is the only partner of AA in Western Europe, they could replace add some flight to BRU and give up some flights to Paris, London, etc... Sn is going to a lot of destinations in EU so I thought that maybe JAL should go to BRU from 2007, as LAN and Cathay Pacific should do it instead of going to FRA, EHAM or CDG where they have no partners. Of course London is a good place for them but it's not on the continent , it hasn't so good connection to Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt as BRU does. And more Biac is looking for a new airport name, Brussels One World intl. Airport looks great, they could rebuild the satellite and make a "One world alliance terminal". Sn would get into the alliance later and everything would be perfect ! Don't you think we should present this plan to One world, BIAC and SN ?
BRU to One World Intl. Airport and becoming a hub ?
Moderator: Latest news team
Why would a business traveler travel from the USA to Paris/Frankfurt/Amsterdam/... trough BRU? They'll just fly another airline/alliance straight to their destination. As Boeing keeps repeting, point to point is the future (mostly), major hubs are things of the past.
No offence, but your plan won't work, period.
No offence, but your plan won't work, period.
-
AFApresident
- Posts: 371
- Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 00:00
- Contact:
It will work to a certain extent.
When there is sufficient O/D traffic it should be a non-stop flight. I.e. NY or ORD to FRA/CDG/LON/MAD.
But to destinations like Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Milan, Straatsburg, Seville etc a hub is still a very viable option. And than average Joe won't bother whether that stop over is in AMS/LON/FRA/CDG or BRU as long as he gets a good deal.
When there is sufficient O/D traffic it should be a non-stop flight. I.e. NY or ORD to FRA/CDG/LON/MAD.
But to destinations like Stockholm, Gothenburg, Copenhagen, Milan, Straatsburg, Seville etc a hub is still a very viable option. And than average Joe won't bother whether that stop over is in AMS/LON/FRA/CDG or BRU as long as he gets a good deal.
-
sn-remember
- Posts: 848
- Joined: 13 Sep 2004, 00:00
- Location: Jodoigne/Geldenaken
- Contact:
You are right.
Hubs will remain.
There will be
1. main hubs on a worldwide scale
2. main hubs specialised in some part of the world
3. small hubs (probably they will tend to increase in number, thus balancing the main hubs expansion in favor of longer haul thiner routes)
4. And besides the hubs, there will still be the regional centers of course.
Obviously if NW is serving 6 daily DTT-AMS (to mention just Detroit) it is to feed the KL network. Mind not only the KL regional ntwk but also and more and more the long haul network.
Same win/win partnership could indeed be found with AA/SN from BRU within the 1W alliance.
I am convinced that BRU can develop from a class-3 to a class-2 hub for Africa
Great idea you will tell me but that implies a combined will from both partners to adapt their strategies to succeed.
A change in scale for sn also but that could be gradually put in place.
And BRU should have something more subtantial to offer...
Obviously it would help having SN enhance the african ntwk while restarting some North Atlantic operation.
Also putting emphasis on the far east connection could well help feeding the african routes as well. As you mention, it would be great to have JL for instance connecting in BRU on the SN african ntwk .
China/Corea/Japan are all key markets in this strategy.
Regards
Christophe
Hubs will remain.
There will be
1. main hubs on a worldwide scale
2. main hubs specialised in some part of the world
3. small hubs (probably they will tend to increase in number, thus balancing the main hubs expansion in favor of longer haul thiner routes)
4. And besides the hubs, there will still be the regional centers of course.
Obviously if NW is serving 6 daily DTT-AMS (to mention just Detroit) it is to feed the KL network. Mind not only the KL regional ntwk but also and more and more the long haul network.
Same win/win partnership could indeed be found with AA/SN from BRU within the 1W alliance.
I am convinced that BRU can develop from a class-3 to a class-2 hub for Africa
Great idea you will tell me but that implies a combined will from both partners to adapt their strategies to succeed.
A change in scale for sn also but that could be gradually put in place.
And BRU should have something more subtantial to offer...
Obviously it would help having SN enhance the african ntwk while restarting some North Atlantic operation.
Also putting emphasis on the far east connection could well help feeding the african routes as well. As you mention, it would be great to have JL for instance connecting in BRU on the SN african ntwk .
China/Corea/Japan are all key markets in this strategy.
Regards
Christophe
Ok, I must admit what I wrote was a bit wrong, but I meant it differently.
Although hubs will remain, the focus of all cariers (especially USA-Europe trafic) is shifting towards direct routes. Look at all the new routes being started up to smaller cities in Europe.
Of course LHR, FRA, CDG, etc. will still remain hubs. BRU can possibly remain a hub for Africa if SN goes for it instead of sitting on it's ass and doing nothing, but let's not get carried away and see BRU as the new LHR.
BRU can never become a major tranfer point for Europe, because it's right in the middle of 4 other, established hubs. The only way to get people to travel trough the new BRU hub would be with lower fares. SABENA tried that in her last years, and that failure was the last push she needed, unfortunatly. That is why SN is flying small aircraft aimed at bussiness travelers, instead of large aircraft filled with cheap economy seats. Ryanair would have SN beat in that department in no time, anyway.
No airline will base it's bussiness model on connecting passengers at BRU, because that's not where the money is (read the book about 'the crash of Sabena' for more info on that). There is no established hub, so the only way to attract pax, is to offer low fares, wich in turn means no profits for a company like SN.
I'd just rather see a small, profitable airline that has a future at BRU than another Sabena... (wich does not mean SN should stay put, just don't overexpand wanting to be something it's not)
Although hubs will remain, the focus of all cariers (especially USA-Europe trafic) is shifting towards direct routes. Look at all the new routes being started up to smaller cities in Europe.
Of course LHR, FRA, CDG, etc. will still remain hubs. BRU can possibly remain a hub for Africa if SN goes for it instead of sitting on it's ass and doing nothing, but let's not get carried away and see BRU as the new LHR.
BRU can never become a major tranfer point for Europe, because it's right in the middle of 4 other, established hubs. The only way to get people to travel trough the new BRU hub would be with lower fares. SABENA tried that in her last years, and that failure was the last push she needed, unfortunatly. That is why SN is flying small aircraft aimed at bussiness travelers, instead of large aircraft filled with cheap economy seats. Ryanair would have SN beat in that department in no time, anyway.
No airline will base it's bussiness model on connecting passengers at BRU, because that's not where the money is (read the book about 'the crash of Sabena' for more info on that). There is no established hub, so the only way to attract pax, is to offer low fares, wich in turn means no profits for a company like SN.
I'd just rather see a small, profitable airline that has a future at BRU than another Sabena... (wich does not mean SN should stay put, just don't overexpand wanting to be something it's not)
